ChD 15 December 2000. The claimant (C) entered into a contract with the defendant (N) to roof the Millennium Dome, which included a clause allowing N to terminate it without cause as was done on in August 1997. After filing for bankruptcy in 1998 C commended proceedings against N, with summary judgement given against N on appeal. In this action, brought in accordance with CPR 24, C contended that the phrase 'direct loss and/or damage', which appeared in the contract, included loss of profit and that, in its assessment of damages, the court should assume that the C would have been able to fulfil its duties under the contract. "Held": The C was entitled to recover loss of profit and the court should apply the normal rule derived from repudiation cases and assume that C would have been able to perform the contract according to its terms. The only potential exception to this approach would have been if N could have shown that it was inevitable C could not have performed the contract correctly at the date of the acceptance of the repudiation.